Friday

User Details

I've been a Wikipedia editor since 2002 on the English Wikipedia and a few other Wikimedia projects (see my personal account). In May 2012 I joined the Wikimedia Foundation as the "Product Manager" for the VisualEditor Team (now called the Editing-team). I'm now the Lead Product Manager for the Contributors-Team.

Oh, right, now I understand the concern you have. Yes, this different display is because the Commons community has customised its AbuseFilter error messages to look like this (though they look slightly worse given the context), and Beta Commons has a copy of these hacky templates and styling (whereas the Labs instance is running vanilla MediaWiki).

There's an implicit H1 for the wikitext block that we've screwed up by moving our content above. In designs for the future we'll split this all up with tabs, but not sure what @Ramsey-WMF wants done right now, if anything?

If this becomes urgent, I could probably dig in. I'd need good justification to spend time on this, though. In theory, this should be handled by the Wikidata team. On the other hand, there's a non-zero chance that this is something I screwed up :)

Fri, Dec 7

Perhaps, though a date comparison is a little slow. We could do what we did for enabling the visual editor – backfill opt-outs for the small number of accounts that have edited in the past year and then change the default. But it's fiddly.

Absolutely. The two standard design affordances on the Web for "this a thing you can click and it will change the page somehow" are blue coloured text with a hover underline effect, and a graphical representation (to some level of abstraction) of a button. This discussion is proposing doing neither of those things.

Yes, anything that relies on interaction before revealing itself to be a link is not discoverable for people on touch devices [...] That means that any system that only shows the link via some form of interactive element – be that :hover, :focus, or :active – is insufficient.

On the other hand, that depends on the extent to which immediate discoverability is necessary.

Thank you for checking @Jdforrester-WMF .- I'll have some work down the line soon today I hope.

Re. git push: it was my fault. I enabled it because git-review blocked the submission because it had more than 10 patches. I thought git push would bypass that, and indeed it did, but I didn't realised that meant going straight to the codebase instead to the review queue - won't happen again.

Do we have a way to commit more than 10 patches at once with git review?